New NASA prediction

[hamateur 1953]

Yes, a lull in activity is definitely here for the time being.  Whether temporary or the downslide to the dreaded A and B levels of flux, remains to be seen.    To end this for the time being, Id just like to say that I felt honour-bound as a Ham radio enthusiast to support increased solar flux and the associated higher activity that comes with it.  And still expect greater things down the road.  Patrick will probably disagree with this perspective, but that’s ok too.  Mike/Hagrid. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Orilander]

5 hours ago, Philalethes said:

There's nothing really suspicious about that at all, but there's some ongoing debate about the fees, as you can read e.g. here.

The problem here is that he's not elaborating on his findings here. Which is what's being asked of him. Even if he's lacking the 3k needed, the least he could do is run it by us before publishing. I don't know, but it feels like he's making us wait for some other reason besides money, especially given the skepticism he also ready gets here (let us not forget the one time he linked to one of that guy's videos and tried to claim it was a legit source).

[Jesterface23]

2 hours ago, Menno van der Haven said:

This November, the sunspot number is struggling to get above 100. Looking at current images of the sun, I see the large sunspot clusters turning away to behind the sun. Therefore, I think the sunspot number will get even lower in the coming week, perhaps to 20-40.

Of course, this is all just short-term work, but along with the weak second half of October, this will certainly cause the moving average to drop and cause a (temporary?) sunspot peak.

We'll just need to wait and see. Filaments have almost taken over the Sun at this point. I don't know the long term patterns, but I'd guess it could do anything at this point depending on when it switches back to mainly sunspot regions.

[Philalethes]

14 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I agree completely, @Philalethesthere is a small chance he could be correct.  Jan Alvestad essentially posed the same last summer.   And why If Patrick is going to put himself up against most of the world with speculations, he most certainly should also have the chutzpah to finish the job. I don’t think SWL would ding him 3,000 euros for publishing his own predictions here.  NASA put their money down, he just may get lucky.  ( Of course we hope it plays out closer to sc 23 naturally).  Thanks for chiming in here.  Edit: Patrick also made reference to high resolution sunspots in his post. As most of us are presently aware Jan publishes those as 2K resolution along with the normal 1k resolution.   I’m not sure why he decided to bring those up, maybe he would like to elaborate.   Sunspots and solar flux rise and falls. From my perspective, our present situation is not only not unusual, but typical in any SC.   

Well, with regards to the publishing, I think the problem is more that there could be legal issues with publishing results openly if they are to be published in a closed-access journal, because the journal is meant to make its money by people having to buy it to access the research (which is likely also the reason for the author fees, because open-access means people won't have to buy it). That being said, I think I know the gist of Patrick's research on it from everything he's posted, and I'm still not convinced personally, but I guess we'll first have to see how things play out and that it will be worth more discussion when the dust settles in a few years.

As for the high-resolution point, I think what he's saying is that there are a lot more spots visible in the high-resolution images, i.e. that there are more smaller spots than usual currently, and I think that part might be correct although I haven't looked into it that much; what I've mentioned before in response to that is simply that there's a lot of natural variation in sunspot size both within cycles and from cycle to cycle, but there could definitely be insights to be gleaned from facts like that.

12 hours ago, Orilander said:

The problem here is that he's not elaborating on his findings here. Which is what's being asked of him. Even if he's lacking the 3k needed, the least he could do is run it by us before publishing. I don't know, but it feels like he's making us wait for some other reason besides money, especially given the skepticism he also ready gets here (let us not forget the one time he linked to one of that guy's videos and tried to claim it was a legit source).

Well, it's certainly problematic when it comes to properly discussing it, even though you can probably get a good idea of what he's arguing if you look through previous threads he's made, but I would still not say there's anything suspicious about it; as mentioned above there could be legal reasons for not talking more about it too, although I'm not sure exactly how valid those reasons would be.

Overall I agree that Patrick's methodology doesn't seem to adhere that well to what's expected from scientific discourse, but that of course doesn't mean it's not possible that he might be right; I personally doubt it, though.

Edited November 14, 2023 by Philalethes
typo

[hamateur 1953]

Since Patrick will never elaborate it seems. We are left to speculate upon exactly what he may be referring to.  This thread should be illustrative to others who may become entangled in a future discussion with him   This in itself is worthwhile.  Edit:   Sander has made the point in another thread that nobody has “ Nailed it” yet and this is most certainly valid.  The scientific method calls for repeatability, and no amount of dodging or hyperbole can escape the playing out of real data over the course of several cycles.  

 

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Orilander]

On 11/14/2023 at 11:36 AM, hamateur 1953 said:

Since Patrick will never elaborate it seems. We are left to speculate upon exactly what he may be referring to.  This thread should be illustrative to others who may become entangled in a future discussion with him   This in itself is worthwhile.  Edit:   Sander has made the point in another thread that nobody has “ Nailed it” yet and this is most certainly valid.  The scientific method calls for repeatability, and no amount of dodging or hyperbole can escape the playing out of real data over the course of several cycles.  

 

 

And it's, sadly, why I can't trust Patrick (his linking to that YouTuber notwithstanding). Yeah, he's got a justification for his actions, but that doesn't excuse him either.

I'm just saying, if you want to contribute to a conversation properly, and actually have the resources to do so, then why not do so?

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

10 uren geleden, Orilander zei:

And it's, sadly, why I can't trust Patrick (his linking to that YouTuber notwithstanding). Yeah, he's got a justification for his actions, but that doesn't excuse him either.

I'm just saying, if you want to contribute to a conversation properly, and actually have the resources to do so, then why not do so?

Already gave everything.

1. In the beginning of the year we said the 13-month smoothed maximum would fall on the month the average polar field flips the first time. That is May 2023. Due to the not so reliable SSN it could fall in March. The moderators found this an outrageous prediction and put me temporary in jail. My planetary sunspot theory was also put on hold. Therefore we are more cautious.

2. We said to use 365 day smoothing on the solar flux and the high resolution sunspots. That gives another indicator. It is the same as in my published article.

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[Jesterface23]

1 hour ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Therefore we are more cautious.

Ask the other of the 'we' to create an account and join in. That would be welcome.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

NASA INTO HIGHER GEAR…
New path for space weather collaboration among federal agencies | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


https://www.noaa.gov/stories/new-path-for-space-weather-collaboration-among-federal-agencies

[hamateur 1953]

On 11/17/2023 at 8:57 PM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Already gave everything.

1. In the beginning of the year we said the 13-month smoothed maximum would fall on the month the average polar field flips the first time. That is May 2023. Due to the not so reliable SSN it could fall in March. The moderators found this an outrageous prediction and put me temporary in jail. My planetary sunspot theory was also put on hold. Therefore we are more cautious.

2. We said to use 365 day smoothing on the solar flux and the high resolution sunspots. That gives another indicator. It is the same as in my published article.

 

You are in jail? Hopefully this is a metaphor for a perception you hold Patrick.  You obviously have internet access and are able to post on this forum. Although typically prisoners are still allowed in the states to communicate with the outside world.  Personally, I dislike censorship of any kind.  But participation in public discourse requires an awareness of social rules at the very least.  You said Jan agrees with you regarding the early peak last July as being if not the only one, perhaps SC 25 death throes.  This seems to allude to either a direct conversation or messages in some form.   He has not mentioned you publicly as far as I am aware.  Is your collaboration with him a mistaken theory of mine? Or is it real?   Just curious over here.  Mike/Hagrid   Edit: I forgot. Patrick has stated somewhere that he is Belgian living in or near Antwerp I think. 
Jan is also Belgian, if I am not mistaken, and well respected.  And if Patrick should ultimately turn out to be correct, I probably won’t congratulate him.  However I will at the very least acknowledge this fact here. 

Edited December 10, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[tniickck]

2 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

You are in jail? Hopefully this is a metaphor for a perception you hold Patrick.  You obviously have internet access and are able to post on this forum. Although typically prisoners are still allowed in the states to communicate with the outside world. 

i guess he means being not allowed to post

[hamateur 1953]

1 minute ago, tniickck said:

i guess he means being not allowed to post

Perhaps true.  All that pent up anger was perhaps directed at the entire community of NASA?  Hopefully not. 

[Jesterface23]

27 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

29 minutes ago, tniickck said:

i guess he means being not allowed to post

Perhaps true.  All that pent up anger was perhaps directed at the entire community of NASA?  Hopefully not.

That should of been pretty easy to tell lol. Don't want to know what forum prison is like.

[Orilander]

18 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Perhaps true.  All that pent up anger was perhaps directed at the entire community of NASA?  Hopefully not. 

I honestly don't see why he's complaining when people are urging him to post.

[hamateur 1953]

Most disturbing to most of us is his frequent use of “we”.  More disturbing to me anyway was his saying that Jan Alvestad agrees with him!! Almost as if Jan was his subordinate!!  Jan never draws conclusions without solid evidence and he also presents alternative explanations when there might be questions. Jan is a scientist and a good one imho.  I just can’t see Jan throwing a fit over predictions.  
I 

[Orilander]

On 12/11/2023 at 5:19 AM, hamateur 1953 said:

Most disturbing to most of us is his frequent use of “we”.  More disturbing to me anyway was his saying that Jan Alvestad agrees with him!! Almost as if Jan was his subordinate!!  Jan never draws conclusions without solid evidence and he also presents alternative explanations when there might be questions. Jan is a scientist and a good one imho.  I just can’t see Jan throwing a fit over predictions.  
I 

If he was working with Jan, I'd like to see it. As it stands, I'm still not entirely convinced myself.

[hamateur 1953]

For my own interest and those others that wonder where we might be from a sunspot latitude perspective.  The well known fact being that when we are near solar maximum the average latitudes of both hemispheres are around nine to eleven degrees.   Last july seventh which from my memory was sunspot max. ( sfi was 9 july if I recall) the average sunspot latitudes were 16.75 South and 23 degrees north. Together the average is still almost ten full degrees above eleven at 20.20.   Last latitude check was around 15 degrees for both hemispheres. Incidentally I had a nice sample size of eleven to work with given the high activity last july.  It is still my belief that SC 25 has a lot more in store for us down the road. Mike/Hagrid.    This shouldn’t be taken as anything other than it really is, just a periodic observation of where we might be in SC 25. No disrespect is intended to any genuine scientific organization.    Ooooo I see protons!   Guess @tniickckwas right after all.  Haha. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Lawn Boy]

Hi y’all this is my first post and as my handle suggest I cut grass for a living.  I’ve only kept up with the solar cycle since the fall of 2019. I didn’t even know that they existed before 2009. I’ve learned a lot over the last four years and a lot more since I’ve been keeping up with y’all. 

I just ran across the prediction below yesterday and wanted to know what you thought about it. It suggest a slow decline for the next 10 years.

https://spawx.nwra.com/spawx/listpredict.html

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

It’s from NASA. Wrong, like most of the time🤣😉 But less wrong than there prediction I posted in the beginning😉

[3gMike]

4 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

It’s from NASA. Wrong, like most of the time🤣😉 But less wrong than there prediction I posted in the beginning😉

I am surprised that you say it is wrong, since it predicts the peak in June 2023 !!

[Solar_Marcel]

1 hour ago, 3gMike said:

I am surprised that you say it is wrong, since it predicts the peak in June 2023 !!

Am i just confused or didn´t Patrick state the peak earlier than NASA?

 

[hamateur 1953]

Six months ago @3gMikeand again last February, I believe. But you can check the thread “ Solar Max has Passed “ In the event I am mistaken. 

9 minutes ago, Solar_Marcel said:

Am i just confused or didn´t Patrick state the peak earlier than NASA?

 

 

4 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Six months ago @3gMikeand again last February, I believe. But you can check the thread “ Solar Max has Passed “ In the event I am mistaken. 

 

Oh the irony.  They declared him as being correct.  And he objected to this!!   Love it.   Still laughing. 

Well heck.  We all should have a pretty good idea by March 2024 whether SC 25 will play out as predicted publicly.  
I’m expecting a somewhat different outcome as previously stated here, with Solar Maximum around May 2024 or perhaps later.  Stick around @Lawn Boy  This should be interesting regardless of the outcome!  

Edited December 30, 2023 by hamateur 1953

[Lawn Boy]

Am I wrong to be surprised that they are showing a 10 year decline? Y’all haven’t even mentioned it.

[Philalethes]

2 hours ago, 3gMike said:

I am surprised that you say it is wrong, since it predicts the peak in June 2023 !!

I noticed the same thing, heh. Seems like it would have been right up Patrick's alley.

[Jesterface23]

25 minutes ago, Lawn Boy said:

Am I wrong to be surprised that they are showing a 10 year decline? Y’all haven’t even mentioned it.

The forecast is only for solar cycle 25 and goes out to December 2040. You'll notice there is the note of

# Meaningless predicted values after 2033-12 truncated.

The forecast is updated month by month I believe. They seems to be sticking with a peak in July 2025, but this is at least the first time I noticed the July 2025 peak value change a little.